Guest post by GHAZALA JAMIL
I suppose some clarifications are in order. I do doubt that Anna’s Lokpalmobilisation is a movement. Just as Anti-Mandal was, just as Ramjanmbhoomi is, but not the way Dalit Panthers was or NBA and MKSS are. I also want to clarify that my position is not of frivolous dismissal of this mobilisation as a middle class picnic but one of grave concern against what I feel is a uni-dimensional, one point demand around which an entirely regressive and casteist politics can be and is being wrapped up. A collectivity of SC/ST and Minority groups yesterday organised a protest march in Central Delhi. It was reported in many dailies- highlighted as having affected traffic in the area for 45 minutes thus dismissed as not being any valid counterpoint to ‘I am Anna’ wave.
Many authors who have extended a nuanced, qualified and, I must say, informed support to Anna and/or his movement on Kafila.org and elsewhere have pointed out problems of defending the state. Those of us who find ourselves being blamed for being defenders of the state are funnily being denied the credit of a taking an equally valid, nuanced and qualified position on the matter. Let me try to make a stronger claim of having taken an informed position which is neither a blanket defence of the state nor an excuse for inaction. Yes, the state and its machinery are frequently anti-people regardless of the political hue of the party in power. Yes, we already are bearing many regressive and oppressive laws. And yes, various political parties have invariably used their moment of power to bring in legislations that suit their ‘constituencies’, but we must recognise that often the last recourse and only avenue of hope (however bleak) for minorities are some progressive and protective laws and, well established parliamentary processes that at least set a standard.
Second, we should recognise that though Indian people, media and even intellectuals often find it easy to blame political parties for playing caste politics, abetting communalism and communal violence, preserving corruption etc, it is the sections of ‘people’ themselves that are communal, casteist and corrupt. When the sections (that have consistently thwarted my claim to equal citizenship) mobilise, yes it is a movement of the ‘people’ but allow me to be vary of it. ‘People’ feel that the system is rotten to the core (refer to post by Aditya Nigam “A Great Opportunity…”). Okay. But please note that their different positions privilege them to see different parts of this system as rotten. Groups like Youth against Equality find it rotten that there is reservation for backward castes and classes in institutions of higher learning and public sector jobs. I think what’s rotten is that these casteist mobilisations will get support of the likes of Arvind Kejriwal and Kiran Bedi, forming a symbiotic relationship with this uni-dimentional mobilisation ‘on corruption’. A large chunk of ‘people’ in India feel that the rotten core of this system is that Muslims who are ‘foreigners’ according to them, are accorded with a state policy of ‘appeasement’. I find it rotten that minorities in India are under relentless persecution in different parts India. I find it rotten that youngsters are growing up with in ghettos with memories of rath yatra, Bhagalpur, Gujarat2002, Kandhmal etc and feeling that they are second class citizens of the country.
Allow me to find it strange that Aditya Nigam, Nivedita Menon and other authors/signatories in their posts feel that this moment marks the people ‘seeing the system for what it is’, an ‘opportunity’ that can be taken advantage of. I disagree. This is no moment of unveiling of deeplyhidden hegemony, however strongly we may yearn for it. This is only a mobilisation along the already mapped topography of ideologies and perspectives. The more momentum it gains the more ‘we’ (who should have been there) will lose ground. I also do not agree that by offering these views I, or others, are siding with cynical neo-liberal pro-corporate leaders who have ‘suddenly’ discovered that Parliament is a sacrosanct institution. That we are diluting the ‘reality’ (I thought the singular, objective reality was dead… but well…) of ‘people’s feeling’. Adityaji and other friends, please allow me to say a ‘chhota munh aur badi baat’- the phenomenon ‘people’ are a bunch of plural but fractured, hetrogenous, mulitple-parallel realities. And while I am at it, allow me this as well- Yes a lot of brutality, injustice and oppression in this country happen because of the laws and the fact that state machinery tends to be more concerned about protecting private capital but much of it happens not because of absence/presence or strength/weakness of laws. It happens because prejudice, discrimination and oppression are deeply and intricately woven into our social fabric. The onslaught is so aggressive and violent that it incapacitates people from even coming together to voice their interests and opinion. I invite the readers to discuss why India at present has no movement of Muslim people despite such acute levels of marginalisation, oppression and poverty? Some Muslims do participate in other movements (including Anna Hazare’s) but all these movements have accorded Issues of Muslims in India to a secondary status, if at all they are considering them. The leaders and the participants both in fact emphasise ‘assimilation’. We are told that we have a problem of dragging religion into everything. Though within Dalit and Feminist movements Muslims have still negotiated for and have been accorded relatively more space, the violence of caricaturing and stereotyping of issues goes on at differing degrees in all progressive movements who solicit Muslim participation to pad-up their crowds but never highlight the priorities of Muslims, never address them directly and make no attempt to provide them any succour. In such a situation laws are often (whenever they are available and usable) are the only tools of accessing protection and justice. Laws have been demanded to be repealed or ammended, in some cases it has happened, in some cases it hasn’t. New laws have been sought to be drafted and passed. The process is not flawless but it does allow for some safeguards. I shudder at the memory of laws elsewhere in the world that reduce some people (and constitutionally) to a second class citizenship. I shudder to imagine the possibility of demands of a similar law coming from another media-hyped, self-styled mobilisation. And because we have set the precedence of by-passing the parliamentary procedures they would demand that they get their way because they have the numbers.
Of course, democracy is messy and the only system that is obliged to create space for its own subversion. Therefore, it is imperative that we defend the checks and balances in form of processes that may ensure a full and through scrutiny of contents of a fresh bill or amendment being advocated/lobbied/demanded. I do believe that the constitutional framework in India is very progressive. I also believe that components of equity and justice and protection of the vulnerable are the values that can be and must be upheld in all laws that legalise the subversion of the same (and numerous such laws sadly do exist in India- some colonial relics and other modern memorials of abandonment of responsibility by the now ailing welfare state). This mobilisation has no recognition for such concerns. Kejriwal and group are dangerous in demanding a draconian law with loose, easy to highjack processes.
The most vulnerable on the margins cannot be sneered at for what appears as their attempt at ‘upholding parliamentary supremacy and defending the state’. They are only defending what may be the last straw that will break their back that is already overburdened not by the abstraction that the state is, but by the atrocities of those who have the power to manipulate the state mechanisms, institutions and processes.
KAFILA - COLLECTIVE EXPLORATIONS SINCE 2006 
Thanks very much Shuddhabrata for making these points – particularly the one about the ‘people’ being fractured, heterogeneous, multiple-parallel realities.
LikeLike
Apologies for numerous typos… Just correcting the important one… In the opening paragraph I meant to write, “I do not doubt that Anna’s Lokpal mobilisation is a movement.” The “not” in the sentence got dropped inadvertently.
LikeLike
Uff… another error. The group’s name is ‘Youth for Equality’ and not ‘Youth against Equality’ :D Freudian slip that one!
LikeLike
totally
LikeLike
Thank you for giving all those weary and the wary amongst us a break from the valorisation of the ‘Anna-Shanna’. To stay away is a choice that does not have to stem from intellectual snobbery/apathy/particularistic or partisan understandings of what a movement ought to be, what and who it should represent …We can choose to stay away because there are many many reasons to stay away, as rightfully enumerated by Ghazala. Following multicultural-best-practices need not exonerate this movement of the many dangers it brazenly seeks to inaugurate.
LikeLike
The most vulnerable on the margins cannot be sneered at for what appears as their attempt at ‘upholding parliamentary supremacy and defending the state’. There can be no doubt about this. You are very right in attempting to uphold parliamentary supremacy and defending the state. By being vocal in every possible forum that you can make this view heard. If there are people sneering at you for this, they are not sane, they are wrong, I don’t agree with them. I am not sneering at you. Please don’t take what I am saying next as a sneer:
As I understand, you sneered at Anna movement, they did not sneer at you. Some TV anchors may have sneered at you. Some columnist perhaps. Some commenters on your post perhaps. But not Kejriwal, not Anna. If I am right, their tone was defensive: “Some people accuse us of such-and-such. No, we are not like that” was their tone, as far as I could guess. As far as I can guess, the movement is neither about destroying parliamentary supremacy nor about throwing out the state. (I thought Constitution is supreme in India, parliament is supreme in Britain..but whatever, it really is the same-difference, some thing we learn by heart for some reason).
In the post of “A Great Opportunity, A Serious Danger: A Statement” I could sense more of a wish for overthrowing the Indian state, a Maoist-sympathy of sorts, but I could be wrong. For example where they say it is very bad that “The ultimate message of this [Anna etc] movement is: trust the rules, trust the state…”
A place where caste/religion based discrimination is eradicated would be that govt office where your legitimate request is passed around from desk to desk and delayed unreasonably and deliberately with the intent of extorting a bribe from you. Where money alone decides the fate of your entitlement. (I am not talking of a middle class arrogance that wants to queue jump. Middle class is not so dependent on govt for basic needs, a well to do person they don’t lose anything by waiting a day or month. A middle class arrogance is that of a govt employee who receives govt salary but will cause maximum harassment to the people whom he is supposed to serve). I am talking of a place where money alone gets things done, irrespective for whether you are Dalit or Muslim or anyone else. Where having money is advantage, not having money is disadvantage.
“Kejriwal and group are dangerous in demanding a draconian law with loose, easy to highjack processes.” Yes here, this is a thing that must be carefully examined, debated, corrected if need be. Let that be the debate. Examine what are the draconian provisions. Voice what may be the ways it could get hijacked by. Scream at the top of your voice. Say what safeguards you wish to see there. Make it heard, get it accepted, make sure the country doesn’t further marginalize the already marginalized. ” This mobilisation has no recognition for such concerns,” as you yourselves say.
Too often we have honest citizens’ genuine concerns caught in the net of procedural delays, while dishonest citizens illegitimate demands get speedily done because of money when all these clause, subclause, this-and-that small things of law, regulations and procedures magically disappear. Should we give up all hope for an institutional correction? Would MPs have been serious about Lokpal stuff, these MPs who feel harassed when they see a crowd of people in their lawn? Have they ever been at the receiving end of any sort of injustice or inconvenience?
I can assure you personally as if I was the person who composed myself the words of the preamble of the constitution, that no law will ever come in India which will constitutionally reduce any class of people to second class citizenship. Not even if hundred Hazare movements happen. It is unprecedented, this movement; but it will not set a precedent. On other issues this solidarity will not happen–as far as I can say.
“Therefore, it is imperative that we defend the checks and balances in form of processes that may ensure a full and through scrutiny of contents of a fresh bill or amendment being advocated/lobbied/demanded.” The standing committee process. The power of discussion and voting by the parliament. Yes, agree. I don’t think these processes will be done away with by the present movement. I really hope so.
I believe that the irresponsible behavior some times of the MPs in Parliament, the ruffianism, the uncivil debate, the sometimes pointless and meaningless debates, the way parliament just sometimes does no business at all, just a five minutes of drama and then adjourned.. that is a disrespect towards the constitution and parliament and people who elected them. I make it a point to vote for every election even if I have no particular preference for any candidate. But I am so happy that MPs got a shock treatment this time.
LikeLike
thanks for both your articles, some voice of sanity in this sea of ‘lets be there because there are numbers’ cacophony!
LikeLike
This comment has been withdrawn.
LikeLike
This comment has been withdrawn.
LikeLike
In the last point you ask “how do you presume that a anti-corruption body will not make access to justice more equal, by making it available to those who can’t afford to bribe?” If you just look at the composition of the selection committee of the proposed Jan Lokpal bill, it becomes clear why this Jan Lokpal will not provide access to justice to most people. The selection committee is loaded with retired bureaucrats like CEC, CAG, etc. Team Anna is opposed to a selection committee in which majority held be elected representatives. You can for yourself look at the caste character of higher bureaucracy: http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/psearch/QResult15.aspx?qref=103526
The only sphere of our national life where the dalits, pichhda and adivasi have some sort of representation is politics.
LikeLike
As for your point about the tiny Ashrafiya class among muslims wanting the ‘benefits’, it sounds the same as when upper castes hindus (and muslims) criticize dalit and pichhda assertion as an assertion of Jatavs and Yadavs (and Julahas) respectively.
I also have a problem with the word ‘benefits’. This country is not a chocolate cake :D. The marginalized communities do not just want some ‘benefits’, they want respect and representation.
LikeLike
As far as representation of muslims in Anna’s ‘movement’, I believe she got the information from the same market research company that is informing the media about the popularity of Anna. Or maybe she got a referendum done by the same people who are conducting referendum in Amethi and Chandni Chowk.
LikeLike
Nobody was asking Anna to condemn Gujarat riots, it is he who brought these questions when he praised Narendra Modi’s government. It is not like Anna has to answer everything under the sun but when you are in public domain and make some remarks, is it wrong to ask for a clarification? If he tries to keep his stand ambiguous, should not the media press him for a clear answer? Or is Anna above questioning? “Anna is India, India is Anna”
LikeLike
Shivam Sahab,
Thank you for taking so much time to engage with my posts. I’d like to tell you that your personally directed sarcasm is uncalled for. My tone, my opinions and my choice of forum to air them are all my own. I did respond to many of the issues pointed out by in the comments to my earlier post but I suppose you wanted a response in the comments section only and, are appalled at my audacity of writing another post with my faltering editing skill. My apologies for having annoyed you so much… As for ‘ranting’… what can I say? It is your subjective judgement. And ‘bhashan’? Writing for Kafila I was aware that I will have a readership of more than one :) Should I apologise for not adopting a conversational, informal, ‘cool’, ‘smart’ tone?
Anyway, my response in the format and space that you desire:
1) About my word being the word of God. I suspect that I’m not required to answer that :) the question… Because I think (you do grant me a subjective perspective of realities, I hope) that the value base and, quantum and nature of mobilisation of Anna’s anti-corruption movement are comparable to Ramjanmbhoomi and Anti-Mandal but different from the others that I mentioned.
2) I think your answer to my question stems from a limited analysis of politics of Muslim groups and accorded status of Muslims in India. Also, as usual blame-the-victim game is unfurled in your comment. Vij Sahab, you give me much too less credit for not recognising the Dalits among Muslims and not having read the Sachar report. Is there an examination that you’d like me to write and qualify, before speaking on matters regarding Muslims the next time?
3) Yes, Vij sahab, I am one amongst them. I never insinuated that none of them were at Ramlila Maidan. Please do not suggest that all of them were. Many were at another march organised by several SC/ST and minorities groups for the same reason. You probably don’t think that those who were at this march are as vulnerable/marginalised compared to those at Ramlila. Sure, you are welcome to that view.
4) You have really pushed me down and hard with this one but since we say and believe that personal is political, let me spell it out. I come from a backward Muslim family and have lived all my life in two Muslim ghettos in Delhi. I have spent my short working life interacting and working with movements and grassroots groups on issues that concern them and me. And no, I did not count the ‘skull caps’ even as they were up for display at Ramlila Maidan specifically for that purpose.
5) I suspect that you are trying to make a backhanded point but I’m not really sure I understand it. I think I’d rather not risk a response here for fear of attracting your ire at ‘my ignorance’ : )
In the end, Shivam sahab even though I’m left feeling a little sheepish at having taken up your macho challenge, I thank you once again for ‘frisking’ my ‘rubbish’ and apologise for any typos/errors here in this comment.
LikeLike
At the risk of digressing, let me point out that it is instructive to see how the left leaning intellectuals don’t loose any opportunity to glorify (and perhaps lionize as well) the stone-pelting awam of Kashmir (and here I am not, for a moment, condoning the monstrosities committed by the Indian state) but will go to great lengths with long, abstruse analysis which are often fraught with internal contradictions to discount a largely non-violent movement (for lack of a better word) on an issue as endemic as corruption, as an elitist, casteist & communal movement.
If ‘sympathy for the underdog’ is something which has always driven the leftists, does it take an Einstein to figure out that it is the underdog who is most afflicted by corruption in its political, corporate (something which was pointed out very eloquently by Mr. Nigam on Kafila) or any of its other myriad, avatars?
While I have serious reservations with the approach being adopted by Hazare and some provisions of Jan Lokpal Bill, I am equally appalled by the stand taken by many leftists of varied hues whose primary point of contention is non-inclusiveness of this movement. This movement has a focussed agenda and that’s to bring in a law through an Act of Indian Parliament to establish a constiutional authority which will ensure accountability of government functionaries and provide enough deterrence against bribery & non-performance with enforceable means of dis-incentivising & punishing errant individuals.
But apparently, the author has serious difficulties in understanding this and is bringing in issues of Muslim interests being secondary and other such accusations which don’t cut the ice with a rational mind, as far as the context of Hazare’s movement and Jan Lokpal Bill is concerned.
Finally, a counterpoint to the accusation of short-circuiting parliamentary democracy (something which even the sitting govt has repeatedly made). Hazare as at no point demanded that Jan Lokpal Bill be the one which should be made into law. His demand has only been that Parliament should discuss this bill as well. How does it amount to bypassing democratic institutions or subverting the constitution?
LikeLike
Shant, gadadhari Shivam, Shant… you may not agree with Ghazala, but I think its unfair to call this post a ‘rant’ – Its an opinion – which is based on thought and experience (like Nivedita’s, Adityo’s and your writings, post your trip/s to the Ramlila Maidan).
I can provide equal number of anecdotes from the same sociological (professional) classes that you quote – so yes there will be the truck driver, farmer, mechanic, call centre worker, home maker, filmmaker etc, who do not approve of this BILL (or any Lokpal Bill) and will question the motivations/ sensibilities of those who support it.. they are also PEOPLE… don’t push of homogeneity in thought please – that makes you no better than….
LikeLike
This comment has been withdrawn.
LikeLike
You write: “I invite the readers to discuss why India at present has no movement of Muslim people despite such acute levels of marginalisation, oppression and poverty?” I think the answer is the tiny class of Ashrafiya Muslims which wants all the benefits in the name of poor Muslims….
wtf!!!
musalmano ki awaz – shivam vij – zindabad!
LikeLike
This comment has been withdrawn.
LikeLike
Btw, Shivam – would you care to enlighten me (you can choose to ignore) how you came to this remarkable conclusion that ‘the tiny class of Ashrafiya Muslims which wants all the benefits in the name of poor Muslims’….
LikeLike
Try Googling Salman Khursheed + Pasmanda Muslims, for a start
LikeLike
Why is there no reservation for pasmanda Muslims in Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia Millia Islamia?
LikeLike
Shivam – It is very difficult to engage with you at this point. I am afraid my grammar, spelling and articulation will not be upto your standards…
LikeLike
Shivam Vij, I don’t think Ghazala’s post is a rant at all. It is well-considered, nuanced, passionate, and logical. On the contrary, it is your comment to her post that is a rant. The Jan Lokpal is long-overdue. BUT the India Against Corruption’s draft is fraught with grave contradictions and itself has deep conflicts of interest. So far, this movement has been completely unwilling to consider checks and balances that need to be in-built into the Lokpal itself for its own effectiveness that other bills (and the NCPRI’s is but one such) consider. The movement’s own conduct is totalitarian. I have admired Nivedita Menon’s, Aditya Nigam’s and your own writings Kafila in the past, but all of your posts on this issue are problematic, and your own most surprising rant to Ghazala’s post is disquieting.
LikeLike
Seldom have I come across a response from a Kafila moderator that is so bilious, insensitive, self-aggrandizing, and sexist. I admire Mr. Vij’s posts on Kashmir-related issues and other stuff for their gumption and directness, but his response to Ghazala Jamil’s opinion-piece has crossed a line somewhere. I hope he has similar gumption to apologize to her. Though, I doubt he will. The Penis is mightier than the pen, after all.
All hail Shivam Vij–Kafila’s Anna–the self-righteous, syntactically-sacrosant crusader who has it all figured out. I wonder what kind of cap he wears.
LikeLike
A lot was wrong with my response but how was it sexist? I write a similarly bilious response to Anish Ahluwalia, why was that not sexist? And why did you stop at accusing me of misogyny, why not Islamophobia as well?
LikeLike
I sincerely apologise to Ghazala Jamil for the uncivil tone of my reply. My reply was written in the heat of the moment and I should have exercised better discretion. Having said that, I must add that I stand by the substance of my response.
LikeLike